Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202232933)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232933

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

31 January 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The resident’s complaint is regarding the landlord’s handling of a transfer request on medical grounds and its requests for further medical information.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She has lived at the property, described as a 2-bedroom flat in a purpose built low-rise block, since 2007.
The landlord has stated it had no record of the resident having any known vulnerabilities, other than English being her second language. However, in its submissions to this investigation, it said it noted during its complaint procedure there were “various medical issues which (the resident) shared with us”, including auto-immune diseases. It stated this was detailed within her transfer application and “within the related case”.
The Ombudsman is aware the resident also made a previous complaint to the landlord regarding the condition of her property. This was responded to at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaint procedure in March 2023. Although the resident advised she asked for that complaint to be escalated in March or April 2023, , the complaint referred to this Service related to issues other than the condition of her property. The Ombudsman considers it reasonable the landlord opened a new complaint case. This investigation will consider the issues raised by the resident in her November 2023 complaint, as defined above, rather than concerns regarding the condition of the property or the landlord’s handling of the previous complaint. It will, however, be referred to for context.

Summary of events

In September 2022, the resident submitted an application to move to a new property on medical grounds. Records show this was processed by the landlord 2 days later and sent to its Medical Advisor. On 6 October 2022, the resident was awarded a Band D priority on the landlord’s housing register.
In February 2023, the landlord attended the resident’s property to carry out an inspection. Its report of the 21 February 2023 visit noted the following:
1. There were “significant signs of damp to the entire property”. This included inside the cupboards and there was also a “large amount of flaking paint” in the bedroom, bathroom, kitchen and hall cupboard. The back door was also “completely swollen” due to the “cold/damp condition”.
2. It stated the following works needed to be undertaken:
  1. All flaking paint and wallpaper to be scraped back and removed.
  2. The “entire flat” (including ceiling, walls and all wood work) to have a complete mould wash. “At least two coats of…anti-mould paint” to be applied to all walls and ceilings, while all wood work should be “fully sanded, primed, undercoated and finished in a white gloss paint”.
  3. Remove the back door, plane and adjust to ensure it was left in working order. A replacement “will be installed” if adjustment works were insufficient or if they hindered the functioning of the door.
On 7 March 2023, the landlord noted that a “building report (was) now available” and an “updated medical review” could be carried out.
Records show the resident was offered a temporary decant in March 2023 to allow the recommended works to be carried out. On 17 March 2023 she emailed the landlord to advise that she would not move on a temporary basis and would only move if offered a permanent transfer as the cold and damp in the property affected her medical conditions. On 20 March 2023 the resident’s housing application was reassessed and she was granted Band C priority.
Between 29 March and 28 April 2023, the resident and landlord exchanged a number of emails regarding her health conditions, rehousing application and outstanding repairs:
1. The landlord clarified that a medical assessment had been “sent off for an independent review” and that the resident had been awarded Band C (it clarified its banding system went from A to D, with A being the highest priority) which it said took into account her “supporting medical needs”.
2. It reiterated its offer of temporary accommodation while repairs were carried out, but the resident again said a permanent move was her “only option” and she would wait until she was granted one. She was also unwilling to give access to any contractors. The landlord advised the resident she had an “obligation to allow access for these (works) to be completed”.
3. The resident provided new medical information and asked the landlord to reassess her housing application. The landlord requested documentation regarding her treatment and medication and for information about her husband’s reported medical conditions. In response, the resident provided a hospital letter but declined to provide anything further (her medical letters were “private”) or any details regarding her husband’s reported conditions. She said the landlord’s requests for additional information were making her “very tired” and she had already provided all the details it had asked for.
4. The landlord tried to assure the resident that information provided would remain confidential and reiterated that any information would be passed on to its medical assessor for a revaluation of her banding.
On 7 July 2023 landlord records note a new letter from the resident’s GP was “added to (her) file”. It noted that her application was “to be referred for a medical assessment once (a) timescale for repairs (is) confirmed”. On the same day, the resident’s HA sent an email (the landlord has redacted the recipient’s details so it is unclear who this was to) and asked for the resident’s latest medical information to be “assessed by the medical officer” to ascertain if her banding should be changed. They also asked for advice as to whether temporary accommodation such as a hotel was suitable for the resident and her family “whilst works are being carried out” in her property.
Landlord records indicate that a decision was made not to contact the Medical Assessor until further information was provided by its Repairs Team regarding how long repairs in the resident’s property were expected to take. This information was chased on 6 occasions between 24 July 2023 and 29 September 2023 with no response.
Records show a surveyor contacted the resident on behalf of the landlord on 14 November 2023 to arrange an inspection. However, the resident said she did not want a survey to be carried out.
On 21 November 2023 the resident emailed the landlord regarding her request for a move to another property. She raised the following concerns:
1. The landlord had asked her to provide a medical letter “to raise the banding” (of her housing application) and she had done so on 5 May 2023. She said this letter “stated everything about (her) illness” but in the 7 months since then, the landlord had not carried out a medical review and was now “asking for medical information again”. She also had a surveyor come to inspect the property, but now the landlord was saying a further inspection was needed.
2. She had applied for a permanent move in September 2022 and sent the landlord “many emails” outlining her illness and the condition of the property. However, she felt it “did not listen” and “threatened” her, saying her banding would not be changed without further medical information.
3. She said the landlord had been negligent and wanted her email to be treated as a formal complaint.
The resident sent the landlord a further email regarding her complaint on 8 December 2023. She stated she was unhappy with a stage 1 complaint response the landlord had provided previously and said she had asked for this to be escalated in March 2023. She went on to refer to repair issues, which were raised within her earlier complaint. However, the resident also stated she was “eligible for (a) high priority for permanent relocation to a suitable home” due to the condition of her home and her medical conditions. She reiterated that she had provided medical information on 10 May 2023 but the landlord had “missed” her email and not taken any further action. She stated the GP letter(s) she had provided detailed all her illness, medicines and treatments and said she had told the landlord her conditions were made worse by stress. She felt the landlord had not understood her and had “demoralised” her.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 11 December 2023. An internal diary entry noted the complaint had originally been sent directly to the resident’s Housing Advisor, who was on leave at the time.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 12 December 2023 to state she had already asked for the complaint to be escalated. The landlord replied to clarify its position regarding the complaints, noting it had responded to the previous complaint regarding damp and mould in the property in March 2023, whereas her more recent contact was regarding her Housing Advisor (HA). As the more recent contact was not regarding the same issue, it would not be able to escalate the complaint straight to stage 2. Instead it would open a new complaint at stage 1 of its procedure. The resident replied and said the landlord had confused her by apparently “transferring” her previous complaint to its Housing Department when she had asked for it to be escalated in March 2023.
Further correspondence from the resident on 14 December 2023 outlined that the “reason for (her) complaint” was regarding the landlord’s handling of her application for a transfer to a new property submitted in September 2022, which she made due to the condition of her property. She stated she had been given an unfair banding on the landlord’s housing list and her HA’s “performance” had “hurt (her) soul and spirit”. She reiterated that she wanted her complaint escalated as she wished to move to a new property on a permanent basis.
On 27 December 2023, the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. It said it was sorry the resident was “unhappy with the service…provided” and noted it had spoken with her about the complaint on 13 December. It considered the complaint was about privacy concerns regarding the information it had requested in support of her transfer application and that her Housing Advisor had made her feel “nervous and confused”. It noted the resident wanted a “clear explanation” as to why the information it had asked for was required. It made the following comments and findings:
1. After receiving her complaint, it had spoken with its Housing Service Manager who noted the resident had another concurrent complaint regarding the condition of her home. A surveyor had been booked to carry out an inspection and the resident and her family had been offered a temporary decant (a temporary move) while repair works were carried out. However, the resident had refused to move on a temporary basis and had said she would only move if the transfer was permanent.
2. The landlord advised it had asked for further medical information to support an application for a permanent move. It explained it was “unable to progress the medical (transfer) application with just the medical letter (from her GP)”, as this did not detail why it was considered beneficial for her to move or why her property was unsuitable.
3. It went on to say “there isn’t a lot we can do” if the resident was unwilling to share further information to be reviewed by a medical professional for further assessment. It could “limit access to this information on the system to help with…privacy concerns”, but said its policy was clear on the “information we require to assess a customer’s needs” and provide a fair process and assessment. It apologised for “upset this may have caused”.
4. It apologised for “the level of service you have received” but did not specify whether or not the complaint was upheld.
The resident emailed the landlord on 28 December 2023 to advise she was dissatisfied with its stage 1 response. She did not feel the landlord had listened to her and asked for the complaint to be escalated because:
1. She had been “told” to move on a temporary basis but she had said this would be “troublesome” for her. She said her property had issues other than the damp and mould but the landlord had ignored these.
2. She provided a dated “complete medical letter” as requested by her HA, but then heard nothing further for around 3 months. When she chased a response, she was told it was “not enough”. She maintained the medical letter she provided in May 2023 should have “everything…required”.
3. It was not the “duty of (her) GP” to tell the landlord her property was unsuitable. Her illnesses were outlined in the GP’s letter and it was therefore up to the landlord’s medical advisor to make a decision. She believed “any professional medical advisor” should be able to establish that a person with a weak immune system would be affected by the condition of her property. She did not believe the landlord’s response was “logical”.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request the following day and then provided its stage 2 response on 6 February 2024. It noted that, in order to resolve the complaint, she wanted the banding on her application to be changed. As part of its investigation of the complaint, it explained it had spoken to the HA and it made the following comments and findings:
1. It reiterated the resident had been offered a temporary move owing to the damp and mould present in her home. After she had said that a temporary move would not be suitable, it had advised her it needed to further assess the works required in her home in order to progress any request for a permanent move. Although the resident had initially refused access, an appointment was later made for 8 February 2024. Once completed, the landlord said it would “review the level of works required” and “confirm…what the next steps will be regarding moving options”.
2. It clarified that the resident had a second complaint open regarding the condition of her property, to which it had responded to separately.
3. It said the HA had not intended to cause the resident annoyance or to bother her. Rather, they wanted to “collate as much medical information as possible” to enable a fair assessment of the re-banding application. It apologised for any delay in responding to the resident regarding this.
4. It clarified it had received 2 letters from her GP, dated 22 September 2022 and 12 May 2023. It noted these confirmed the resident’s diagnoses but did not “provide detailed information (to) evidence the difficulties” she faced in her home or “how a move to another property will be of benefit”. Without this information, it would be “difficult” for the medical assessor to “make a further review of your banding” (which it clarified was currently Band C).
5. It reiterated that once it received details of the repairs needed at her property, and how long they would take to complete, it would review “(her) moving options” and arrange for a further medical review of her banding.
6. The independent medical advisor would review her banding “based on the information (she and her) GP have provided…and make an assessment” on whether she needed to move out while works were undertaken.
7. It also apologised for the delay in providing its stage 2 complaint response. It said that according to its complaints policy, this should have been provided within 20 working days, or by 29 January. As it had not updated her regarding the delay, it apologised and offered £50 compensation to recognise the “uncertainty and frustration” the delay caused.
The landlord emailed the resident on 20 June 2024 to apologise for missing an appointment that had been arranged on 8 February 2024. It noted the resident had again said the condition of her property was affecting her but reiterated it needed “access to carry out a full survey to identify (the) works required”.
Within its submissions to this investigation, sent on 1 October 2024, the landlord advised that a “timescale for repairs” was still outstanding but an inspection regarding repairs had been arranged for 2 October 2024. It advised one had previously been booked for 16 September 2024 but did not take place. Separately, the resident advised this Service that the landlord did not attend. At present it is unclear if the October inspection took place, or if any assessment regarding the condition of the property and required repairs is complete.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In correspondence with the landlord and this Service, the resident has referred to health conditions which she states have been impacted on by the condition of her home and the landlord’s requests for information. While we acknowledge the resident’s concerns, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused and how the landlord responded to this.

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord’s Allocations Policy states that emergency moves are categorised as either a “management transfer” or “priority move”. Residents who need to move “on an emergency and temporary basis for major repairs to be carried out at their home” are treated as management transfers. It classes situations where residents need to move “on an emergency basis such as….a permanent decant for repairs or severe medical cases…where it’s unsafe for the customer to remain living in their home on a permanent basis” as a priority move. It states that “any management transfer or priority move request” will be put before a closed panel of 3 managers. While there is no right of appeal if a request is denied, a new panel review can be arranged when new information is available.
The Allocations Policy also sets out the circumstances under which residents will be granted a banding on its housing register. Band A (the highest priority) can be awarded when “essential work (is) required to a customer’s home where they need to be moved out in order to carry out major works or because of health and safety reasons”. Band B may be awarded when a resident has a medical condition which is “adversely affected by their current housing” and Band C contains a category for residents who have “a moderate medical condition (which is) affected by their current housing” (the wording of the policy appears to suggest that this only applies to residents who are overcrowded, but it is assumed this is not the intention).

The landlord’s handling of a transfer request on medical grounds and its requests for further medical information

Records show the landlord acted appropriately when the resident first applied for a transfer in September 2022. It assessed her application promptly and issued a banding just over a week later. This was reasonable.
It also acted reasonably when the resident asked for her application to be reassessed. It carried out an inspection of the property at the end of February 2023 and, based on the findings of the survey, agreed to arrange for an updated medical assessment. Once the survey report was received on 7 March 2023, it amended her banding on 20 March, upgrading her priority to Band C. While the resident may have been disappointed with the outcomes and wanted a higher banding, the landlord again handled both the original application and the reassessment appropriately, in a timely manner and in line with its procedures. It also offered the resident a temporary decant while it carried out works that were recommended following the property inspection.
However, after this point an impasse between the resident and landlord appears to have occurred and the landlord’s overall communication and application of its policies led to confusion and frustration for the resident.
Having refused the landlord’s offer of a temporary move as she was only willing to move permanently, in May 2023 the resident submitted a new GP letter and asked for her housing application to be reassessed again. Records show the resident’s HA forwarded this to the Medical Assessor in July 2023 and asked them to “reassess (the resident’s) application”. They also asked for advice as to whether the type of accommodation the resident had been offered temporarily – a hotel – would be suitable for her and her family. This Service has not seen any records of a response from the Medical Assessor.
A note in the landlord’s records from July 2023 also stated the resident’s application would be reassessed once all the building works are completed. However, 18 months on, it does not seem to be in dispute that the resident’s application has not been assessed again, her priority banding remains as Band C and repairs in the property remain outstanding. This is not appropriate.
In its submissions to this investigation, the landlord advised that while it originally offered the resident a temporary decant to allow works to be completed, it needed to inspect the property again so it can assess whether a temporary move was appropriate. It stated it was not able to reassess her housing application without a new survey being carried out so it could establish “the scale of the works required” and how long they were expected to take. This position appears to be a large part of the resident’s frustration, as the landlord’s original decision to offer a temporary decant was based on the findings of an inspection carried out in February 2023.
While it may have wanted to have as much medical and repairs information as possible before carrying out a further reassessment of her housing application, the Ombudsman is unaware of any reason why the landlord could not have processed the application based on the information it had available. If there was not enough evidence to award a higher priority banding, it should have issued a decision to that effect and explained its reasons.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s requests for further medical information were reasonable and it reasonably aimed to provide assurance in its final complaint response regarding her privacy concerns. However, when it became clear the resident was reluctant to provide further information and considered the landlord already had the information it needed, it should have either accepted this and tried to progress the application on the information available, or provided more clarity regarding why it wanted further information.
The landlord then appeared to decide that it could not reassess her application without updated repairs information, and also advised the resident it could not proceed with any reassessment without further medical information. While the HA’s email from July 2023 appears to contradict this approach, as they clearly asked the Medical Assessor to do so based on the new GP letter provided in May 2023, further internal email correspondence appears to show this was not sent off for assessment as there was no indication of how long repairs would take to complete. The repairs information was regularly chased over the next 4 months and the staff member’s frustration at the lack of response was apparent. However, it is unclear if the situation was fully explained to the resident, who was still chasing for updates. It was unreasonable to allow the situation to fall into limbo, with the assessment not being progressed because repairs information was not forthcoming. This caused unnecessary delays and did not treat the resident fairly.
While the Ombudsman understands up to date repairs information is important, the landlord has not adequately explained – either to the resident or this Service – why it needed to carry out a further survey, or why the original survey did not make clear what works were required or how long they would take. These are factors which the Ombudsman would assume the landlord should have already known before it made the decision to offer a temporary decant. Having determined that the resident needed a decant while works were carried out, it is not clear what a new survey would have established in relation to whether her application could be reassessed or a higher banding awarded.
It is notable that, within her correspondence with the landlord, the resident made clear she felt confused by the process and the landlord has not provided clarity by clearly explaining its position or how it was applying its policy. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that the current impasse appears to be in part down to the resident’s refusal to allow access for a further inspection (it is also acknowledged that the landlord has apparently failed to attend on some other occasions) this is in the context of her not understanding why a further inspection was necessary at all and the landlord failing to explain this clearly.
It was up to the landlord to properly explain why it did not already have all the information it required, particularly regarding repairs. However, from the evidence seen, it failed to so. In fact it likely further confused the situation when it gave advice such as that contained in its stage 2 response that its Medical Assessor would “make an assessment” as to whether she needed to move out of the property while repairs were carried out, given that this decision already appeared to have been made some months before.
It was also unhelpful that the landlord advised in its stage 1 response that there was “not much it could do” without further medical information. While the Ombudsman understands the landlord was likely trying to stress that the more information it could provide to the Medical Assessor, the better the chance of the resident receiving a favourable outcome – and it did a better job of explaining this within its stage 2 response – its original choice of language would likely have left the resident feeling unsupported.
While, as above, the Ombudsman is careful not to say the landlord should have awarded the resident a higher banding, it should have provided more clarity regarding why it had not done so when it reassessed her application in March 2023. As its Allocations Policy says it will award ‘Band A’ status when there are “essential works required to a customer’s home where they need to be moved out in order to carry out major works because of health and safety reasons”, the resident would have been confused as to why this did not apply to her, given the landlord had already offered her a decant. The landlord was entitled to make the decision it did, but it should have done more to explain its position, within its general correspondence and complaint responses.
It is also unclear whether the landlord gave any consideration to putting the resident’s case before a Management Transfer panel, as its Allocations Policy states it was able to do. When it felt unable to progress or reassess her transfer request on medical grounds, the landlord should have considered other options available but there is no evidence it did so. This meant the situation dragged on without any kind of resolution, which again did not treat the resident fairly.
Overall, it was reasonable of the landlord to ask for additional medical information and it took reasonable steps to provide reassurance regarding privacy concerns. However, it did not properly explain why it needed further information and it unfairly delayed in asking for a further reassessment of her application after she submitted a new GP letter in May 2023.
Its decision to then delay forwarding any reassessment request to its Medical Advisor without updated repairs information led to a significant delay which this Service understands is still ongoing. It is unreasonable that, over 18 months after the resident supplied further medical information in May 2023, no further assessment has been carried out and no formal decision has been given. The landlord should have been more proactive in finding a solution to the problems it identified (with a lack of either medical or repairs information) and its failure to do so caused the resident unnecessary stress and uncertainty.
The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout the process was poor and it did not do enough to explain its positions to the resident, which she stated were confusing (and appear confusing to the Ombudsman). If the information it had gathered from its February 2023 survey was insufficient, it should have acknowledged this and explained the situation to the resident. The landlord did not handle the resident’s transfer request appropriately and the Ombudsman has made a maladministration finding on this basis.
Orders are made for it to pay the resident compensation that reflects the distress and inconvenience she has been caused. The landlord is also ordered to contact the resident and draw up an action plan for progressing a reassessment of her housing application, even if no further information is available, so as to ensure she receives a formal response.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of a transfer request on medical grounds and its requests for further medical information.

Reasons

The landlord unfairly delayed reassessment of the resident’s housing application for a significant time. It failed to adequately explain both why it needed further information regarding her medical conditions and repairs.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, pay the resident £250 to reflect its poor handling of her transfer request and the resulting distress caused to her.
The landlord is ordered to, within 8 weeks of the date of this report, contact the resident and compile an action plan regarding how it will reassess her transfer request on medical grounds and/or consider putting her case before its Management Transfer panel. It should provide this Service with a list of the actions agreed and details of any decision(s) made regarding either of these rehousing options.